Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool

Ref ID 111
First Author R. S. Ho
Journal NPJ PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Year Of Publishing 2015
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25569783/
Keywords Transparency
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Language
Pulmonology
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Language restriction
Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
Poor consideration of publication bias
Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data
Number of systematic reviews included 79
Summary of Findings Only 18% of the 79 included systematic reviews considered the scientific quality of primary studies when formulating conclusions and 49% used appropriate meta-analytic methods to combine findings. The problems were particularly acute among MAs on pharmacological treatments. In 48% of systematic reviews the authors did not report conflict of interest. Fifty-eight percent reported harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 65% of systematic reviews, and only 10% had searched non-English databases.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No